Partly allowed

B. Santhosh, Nanded District v. Ottem Srinivas and Anr, Nizamabad

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024MACMA/1875/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal from Rupees eight thousand nine hundred thirty-nine to Rupees ninety-seven thousand eight hundred seventy-seven, primarily due to unaccounted special damages and failing to consider contributory negligence.

What did the court decide?

The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 8,939 to Rs. 97,877. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks. The lower court decree was confirmed for all other heads.

B. Santhosh, Nanded District Vs Ottem Srinivas and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE THIRD^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 1875 OF2009}

¶6

Appeal u/s. 173 of Motor^{VehiclesAct against the Judgmentand decree in} o.P.No.1 195 0f 2002 daled^{23104120070n the file of the court of the Motor} Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vlll^{Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.}

¶7

Between.

¶8

B. Santhosh, Sio Shanker^{Stone Cutter CumSupplier Rl/o Pipri VillageKinwat} Tq., Nanded District

¶9

...ClaimanUAppellant

¶10

AND

¶11

'l . Ottem Srinivas, S/o Gandaiah Business Cum Owner of Auto Bearing No AP 25U 1995 R/o Sarangapur,^{Nizamabad District}

¶12

United lndia lnsurance^{CompanyLimited' Rep by its Divisional Manager} Divisional Office Near Mayuii^{Hotel Godown Road, Nizamabad District}

¶13

... Respondents/ResPondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:Sri.^{P.Radhive Reddy}

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: B.NarayanaReddy,}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: None appeared}

¶17

The Court made the following:^Judgment

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1875 of 2OO9

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award dated 23.04.2OO7 in O.P.No.1195 of 2002 passed by

¶22

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additinoal Distiict Judge, Nizamatihd.flr I t,I jr.r i,l \lr. ,,

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

¶24

The claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,0O0/- for the injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident.

¶25

According to the claimant, while he was standing on the side of the road at Gangaramanda village shivar on Nandipet to Nizamabad road and at the time, the auto bearing No.AP 25U 1995 driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed the claimant with the auto, due to which the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of skull and injuries on

¶26

KS, J MACMA_1a 75_ZOO9

¶27

¶28

head, face and both eyes. Because of the perrnanent disability sustained, he is unable to attend his duties.

¶29

The claimant in the accident, sustained fracture injuries and disability.

¶30

As per the evidence of claimant/PWl, PW2/doctor and Exs.A7 and A10, the claimalt suffered the injuries i.e. i) fracture of both bones of right leg, ii) fracture of skull and injuries on head, iii) face and both eyes. The doctorlPW2 certified that he l:rad 4Oo/o partial permanent disability, however, the said disability factor was not considered by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no corroborating evidence to the disability factor like x-ray, etc. Hence, this Court is also not inclined to interfere with the said finding.

¶31

The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.15,000/towards one fracture injury, Rs. 1,500/- towards one simple injury and however, the said amount was not calculated during the final result of petition. Further, no amount was granted towards pain and suffering. As the petitioner has

¶32

Ks, J MACMA_1a75_2009

¶33

¶34

sustained^{grievousinjury and one simple injury, this Court} is inclined to grant an^{amount of Rs.30,000/- towards} grievous injury, Rs.10,000/-^{towardssimple injury and} Rs.2O,OO0/- towards^{pain and suffering.}

¶35

As per the evidence available on^{record, the Tribunal} has considered an amount^{Rs.I7,877/-.towardsmedical} bills, but as there was contributory^{negligence at 5O7o, the} Tribunal has granted an^{amountof Rs.8,939} l-^{and this} Court after perusing the record^{observed that there was a} fracture sustained by the claimant^{and spent huge amount} towards medicines and treatment,^{hence, tJris Court is} inclined to grant Rs.17,877 l-^{towards medicalexpenses.}

¶36

The Tribunal has not^{granted any arnount under the} other conventiona-l heads. Hence,^{this Court is inclined to} grant an amount of Rs. 1O,00O/-^{for transportation&} attendant charges each and^{Rs. 10,000/-} for^extra nourishment.

¶37

¶38

KS, ) MACMA_147s_2009

¶39

In the light of the above discussion, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

¶40

Head Compensation awarded

¶41

(1) One grievous and simple injury Rs.30,OO0/(21 Medical expenses Rs.17,877 l- (3) Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/(41 Extra nourishment Rs.10,00O/(5) Transport Rs.10,O0O/(6) Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-

¶42

Total compensation awarded Rs.97,877/-

¶43

I 1. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,939/- to Rs.97,877 /- as hereunder:

¶44

(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5Yo p.a. from the date of petition till the date of reafization.

¶45

Ks, J MACMA_1875_2009

¶46

I I I I i I

¶47

¶48

(b) The respondent-insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of (g) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount w'ithout furnishing any securit5r.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand IL closed. Sd/.^{MOHD. I} ASSISTANT^REGI

\ J

To,

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

u na^{r -c u m -V I I I Ad d itionarD istrictJ ud g e'}

¶55

, lT;H:fif i$$f; ?:'"3,'31T,'"'",Ji

¶56

OneCC^{to Sri P RadhiveReddy' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶57

One^{CCto Sri B NarayanaReddy' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶58

Two^{CD CoPies}

\qr

HIGH COURT

DATED0310912024

169 S TAI €
I q C:
$t
o-) \t\ _)>
1t
,-)
)-n
t
n

¶63

JUDGMEN'I MACMA.No.1875^{of 2009}

¶64

M.A.C.M.A. IS I'ARTI-' AI,I^OWIJD.

¶65

Gcpf"L tu

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶67

TUESDAY THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶68

PRESENT

¶69

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K-SURENDER

¶70

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1875 OF 2009

¶71

Between

¶72

B. Santhosh, S/o Shanker Stone Cutter Cum Supplier R/o Plpri Village Kinwat Tq., Nanded District

¶73

. ClaimanUAppellant

¶74

AND

¶75

Ottem Srinivas, Sio Gandaiah Business Cum Owner of Auto Bearing No AP 25U 1995 R/o Sarangapur, Nizamabad District

¶76

United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office Near Mayuri Hotel Godown Road, Nizamabad District

¶77

Respo n dents/Respo n d e nts

¶78

Appeal u/s. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in O.P.No.1195 ot 2002 daled 2310412007 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶79

ORDER:This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P.Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶80

This Court doth order and decree as follows

¶81

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is^partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,939/- to Rs.97,877l- as hereunder;

¶82

a) That the enhanced amount shall carry interest at7.5%^p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶83

b) That respondent-insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment,

¶84

c) That on such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security;

¶85

That save as aforesaid the decree of the Lower^{Court shall standsconfirmed} in all other respects; and

¶86

That there be no order as to costsⁱⁿ this appeal.

¶87

Sd/. MOHD. ISM IL ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

\ N SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Vlll^{AdditionalDistrict Judge,} Nizamabad. (with records if any)

¶92

One CC to Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. B,Narayana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies *

¶93

HIGH COURT

¶94

DATED:0310912024

¶95

DECREE MACMA.No.1B75 of 2009

¶96

M.A.C.M.A, IS PN R]'LY AI-I,OWI]])

¶97

G rodiA
g-
i{(n"'t

B. Santhosh, Nanded District v. Ottem Srinivas and Anr, Nizamabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Santhosh, Nanded District v. Ottem Srinivas and Anr, Nizamabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Kista Reddy , Krishna Reddy Vs G. Prabhu Lingam

S.Vijayasri Vs D.Srinivasa Roa and 2 Others

M/S Charminar Bottling Co.Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Somaiah Vs P.Bhaskar Rao

K.Koteshwar Rao, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., High Court of a.P, Hyd and Anr.

Daravath Papu Vs G. Devender REddy